In a letter to the CEOs of OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta, Sanders writes that almost every day brings a new story about how these companies are losing...
I don’t understand the question. Yudkowsky’s book is on my reading list, but judging by the title, I assumed it to be more on the side of restricting AI research, which best aligns with what I think (but suspiciously you refuse to clarify) your stance is.
When I said “the experts” I meant all the people working on AI at these frontier AI companies. You know, the experts?
I disagree with Yudkowsky in pretty much every way possible, and don’t know how you could conclude I agree with him if you saw anything else I posted in this thread. He’s like you, he believes AI is inevitable and wants it to be good too.
When I said “the experts” I meant all the people working on AI at these frontier AI companies
Interesting how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
-“AI” isn’t inevitable
-people who claim otherwise are mostly doing marketing for products in which they’re invested
-experts on “AI” should include more than those employed by the companies trying to make a profit off it
Yudkowsky was not a non sequitur; you were asked which experts you consult, you then refused to name any, so your interlocutor tried speculating about who might qualify for you.
Now I’m interested in how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
Now I’m interested in how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
I know it has already been said, but even your tactics resemble anti-intellectualism. You don’t need to keep hammering the same questions; I will get to them. Calm down, there isn’t a prize at the end; there is no winner or loser. We’re just having a discussion. Breathe.
That link didn’t answer my question, so I have to ask more questions. Are you saying that AI will not (can not?) be a threat to humanity, ever? And is the rationale for that conclusion because you don’t think AI actually works?
Calm down, there isn’t a prize at the end; there is no winner or loser. We’re just having a discussion. Breathe.
You started this off claiming that this person is equivalent to an antivaxxer. You’ve repeatedly dismissed their claims/thoughts based on credentialism without demonstrating why. Now you’re telling them to calm down. I’m not even the person you’re arguing with here and I’m getting mad lol.
Do you really think that your insults are less insulting if you follow them up with condescension? If you refuse to answer my questions, just say so, instead of being a douchebag.
I answered you twice, “in good faith” as you like to say, and it’s clear that’s something you’re not here in.
I don’t like your insincerity with the fake apology, and I don’t like the insincerity of refusing to back up your claims.
We can start with the simplest question, which I already asked: Do you consider Eliezer Yudkowsky to be one of your “experts”?
I don’t understand the question. Yudkowsky’s book is on my reading list, but judging by the title, I assumed it to be more on the side of restricting AI research, which best aligns with what I think (but suspiciously you refuse to clarify) your stance is.
When I said “the experts” I meant all the people working on AI at these frontier AI companies. You know, the experts?
I disagree with Yudkowsky in pretty much every way possible, and don’t know how you could conclude I agree with him if you saw anything else I posted in this thread. He’s like you, he believes AI is inevitable and wants it to be good too.
Interesting how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
I answered your non sequitur as a show of good faith. Your turn: what precisely is the stance you’re arguing here?
@joe seems pretty clear to me.
-“AI” isn’t inevitable
-people who claim otherwise are mostly doing marketing for products in which they’re invested
-experts on “AI” should include more than those employed by the companies trying to make a profit off it
Yudkowsky was not a non sequitur; you were asked which experts you consult, you then refused to name any, so your interlocutor tried speculating about who might qualify for you.
Hope this helps, Joe!
@XLE
That AI doomerism is AI marketing.
Now I’m interested in how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
Slow down, sir or ma’am. We’ll get to your questions, I promise.
What does “AI Doomerism” mean? I am not familiar with the term.
https://ondiscourse.com/ai-doomerism-is-a-business-tactic/
Now I’m interested in how you conflate “expert” with “employee” when determining who you trust. Do you see any conflict of interest here?
And I asked you earlier about why these “experts” never sound the alarm about the environmental or mental harms of AI. I wonder why that is… Do you think it hurts their bottom line?
I know it has already been said, but even your tactics resemble anti-intellectualism. You don’t need to keep hammering the same questions; I will get to them. Calm down, there isn’t a prize at the end; there is no winner or loser. We’re just having a discussion. Breathe.
That link didn’t answer my question, so I have to ask more questions. Are you saying that AI will not (can not?) be a threat to humanity, ever? And is the rationale for that conclusion because you don’t think AI actually works?
You started this off claiming that this person is equivalent to an antivaxxer. You’ve repeatedly dismissed their claims/thoughts based on credentialism without demonstrating why. Now you’re telling them to calm down. I’m not even the person you’re arguing with here and I’m getting mad lol.
Do you really think that your insults are less insulting if you follow them up with condescension? If you refuse to answer my questions, just say so, instead of being a douchebag.
I answered you twice, “in good faith” as you like to say, and it’s clear that’s something you’re not here in.